We support in principle the policy of helping the unemployed find work, making work lift the unemployed out of poverty and the introduction of a single organisation to be contacted by welfare applicants for JSA, TC, HB and CT; but the fully-evidenced inadequate levels of unemployment benefits and the failure of the national minimum wage to lift people out of poverty are ignored in the White Paper and in the Gregg and Freud reports.

The sanctions regimes of the European nations, on which the government says it has based the reforms, are imposed on unemployment benefits which are far more generous than those in the UK and do not run such a severe risk of being disproportionate and worsening existing poverty.  

The proposal for a Child Poverty Bill lacks any reference to a adequate levels of statutory minimum incomes or enforceability; without reference to adequacy it is not consistent with the International Convention on Human Rights nor any of the many conventions endorsing the right to an adequate standard of living to which British governments have signed up since 1946.  
 

Read our response in full or scroll down for a summary.

 

A summary of our response

1. Sanctions to encourage the unemployed find work
2. Work your way out of poverty
3. Wellbeing of the children
4. A single organisation to manage the welfare system
5. Social Fund Review
6. Creatively managed work for benefit
7. Fining drug users

---

 

1. HELP TO FIND WORK

In principle, WE SUPPORT helping the unemployed find work.

However, WE DISAGREE with:

• UK unemployment benefits being among the lowest in Europe
• Bureaucratic errors in the administration of welfare further worsening poverty of some of the poorest citizens.
• Enforcing sanctions (i.e. disproportionate fines) on already inadequate benefits on those who fail to cooperate with the welfare system (but who are dependant on it).

WE SUGGEST THAT:

• A full examination of means and circumstances is vital before sanctions are imposed.
• The Government should carry out its own study on the adequacy of the Benefits system.

DID YOU KNOW:

There are factors that make it very difficult for those on unemployment benefit to cooperate with the welfare system?
Difficulties faced by the unemployed

The UK's benefits system is far below the minimum needed for healthy living?
The minimum needed by a family of 4 is £367.21 per week but benefits is £136.87 less.

The Government has failed to consider the social consequences and moral hazards of having unemployment benefits below the minimum needed for healthy living?

 

2. WORK TO BEAT POVERTY

In principle, WE SUPPORT help towards employment to lift the unemployed out of poverty.

However, WE DISAGREE with the level of the UK’s National Minimum Wage (NMW)

The recommended living wage for London is £7.45 an hour taking into account tax credits . However, the NMW is currently £5.73 an hour. This is far below what is adequate for healthy living and so employment at this level does not improve the UK’s poverty problems.

WE SUGGEST that the Government research the adequacy of the minimum wage and not impose sanctions on already below poverty level benefits.

 

3. WELLBEING OF CHILDREN

We are working with Lord Northbourne, a crossbench Peer, on the Welfare Reform Bill.

Here is a brief summary of the amendments:

• Any decision made by the welfare system about a job seeker or unemployed person should be made with due consideration for the wellbeing of any child whose life may be affected by them decision.
• The best interests of a child have priority over before anyone else such as a parent or any other person. The child’s welfare is paramount.
• No jobseeker, who is a parent of a child under the age of 16 should be denied at least one day per week to spend with their family on a day when the children are not obliged to go to school.

 

3. A SINGLE WELFARE SYSTEM

In principle, WE SUPPORT the introduction of a single organisation to be contacted by welfare applicants for the various benefits available.

However WE DISAGREE with:

• Increasing the job centre’s use of the telephone and internet.

These “improvements” do not acknowledge that those who are most in need of the job centres’ help will most likely have PAYG (Pay As You Go) mobile phones that run out of credit. They will also not have a land line or home computer, BT having cut off over 1 million landlines.

WE SUGGEST THAT:

• Staff be taught to ask applicants immediately for their mobile phone numbers and call them back; a mobile phone can receive calls even if the credit has expired.
• The call centre approach to staff dealing with applicants be replaced by a system where applicants know they will be served by the same member of staff on every occasion they contact the office. The lack of continuity is currently a barrier to applications; many welfare benefits are never claimed.
• The same member of staff will deal with the first stage of appeal which applicants may have to make against mistakes by the organisation managing the respective benefit. Currently the centres to which applicants are expected to appeal against are situated many miles away from their homes and advertise a free-phone number for calls to which mobile phones companies make a high charge.

 

5. SOCIAL FUND

WE SUPPORT a review of the Social Fund

However WE DISAGREE with:

• The use of Credit Unions for the provision of government loans because of the conflict of interest this will create about which loan they offer their members.

WE SUGGEST that The Social Fund should not charge interest.

 

6. STRUCTURED WORK FOR BENEFIT SCHEMES

WE SUPPORT ‘structured work for your benefit’ for people who have had long term unemployment or who have returned from prison. If creatively managed, work for benefit can help young people get into the daily routine of employment after prison as a route into paid employment without sanctions.

 

7. DRUGS DEPENDENTS

WE DISAGREE with:

• The Government’s insistence on fining drug users who fail to engage in its employment proposals. This is as counter-productive as fining the impoverished who do not use drugs.

It should be noted that there are wealthy registered heroin addicts who cost the State nothing in crime or rehabilitation.

SOCIALLY DAMAGING DRUG ADDICTION IS POVERTY RELATED